UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

The pattern “if p, then q; q; therefore p” is invalid because q might be true for reasons other than p. Treating the truth of q as proof of p assumes that the conditional is reversible, which need not be the case. This mistake is traditionally labelled the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Thus the fallacy described in the stem is affirming the consequent.

Option A:
Option A is correct because the error lies precisely in affirming the consequent q and then asserting the antecedent p on that basis. The original conditional only states that p is sufficient for q, not that it is the only way for q to be true. The standard name of this misstep is affirming the consequent.

Option B:
Option B, denying, suggests the different fallacy of denying the antecedent, which has the form “if p, then q; not p; therefore not q”. That pattern is not the one presented in the question.

Option C:
Option C, reversing, is not the accepted technical term in logic textbooks for this specific formal fallacy. While the inference does in one sense reverse the direction of implication, the recognised label is affirming the consequent.

Option D:
Option D, weakening, is not a conventional name for any formal fallacy involving conditionals and does not capture the specific structure of the error described.